chart_scroll_to_date

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior—changing the viewport to center on a date—but says nothing about side effects, failure behavior for out-of-range dates, or whether the chart must already be launched. This is adequate but has gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and object are immediately clear, and the rest of the sentence adds the only needed detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter navigation command with no output schema, the description is functionally complete: an agent knows what action to take and what input is relevant. It omits edge-case behavior on invalid or out-of-range dates, but that is less critical for a simple viewport jump.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes the single 'date' parameter as an ISO date or Unix timestamp string (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds only the context that this date is the centering target, without extra format, syntax, or edge-case semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific action ('jump ... to center') on a well-defined resource ('chart view') with a precise target ('a specific date'). This clearly separates it from siblings like chart_set_symbol, chart_set_timeframe, or chart_set_visible_range, which change other aspects of the chart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as chart_set_visible_range or replay controls. The purpose statement implicitly suggests the use case, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion to help an agent choose among navigation-related siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.